Only two fragments (KBo 55.235 and KBo 56.179) have so far been identified as describing celebrations in the House (or temple) of Ḫannu. In the absence of explicit indications that these rites formed part of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival, their attribution must remain tentative, especially since a great assembly in the House (or temple) of Ḫannu is also attested on day 17 of the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM festival. Because both the AN.DAḪ.ŠUM and the nuntarriyašḫa- festivals have incorporated this event into their schedules, one should not exclude the possibility that only a single set of ritual instructions for the celebrations in the House (or temple) of Ḫannu was produced and subsequently reused for both great festivals.

The two identified fragments are neither joins nor duplicates. Nevertheless, they seem to refer to the same sequence of events, with KBo 56.179 (ms. B) following directly after KBo 55.235 (ms. A). The preserved text first reports the conclusion of one ceremony (possibly a great assembly) in the House (or temple) of Ḫannu, and then goes on to describe the beginning of another ritual in the evening, marked by the lighting of torches.

• H. Otten, StBoT 15, 1971: 44
• M. Nakamura, Diss.Würzburg, 1993: 492-494
• M. Nakamura, PIHANSt 94, 2002: 248f.

KBo 55.235 (then unpublished Bo 69/1260) was identified as part of the nuntarriyašḫa- festival by Houwink ten Cate Ph.H.J. 1988a: 172 and subsequently accepted by Nakamura M. 2002a: 248f. By contrast, the possible attribution of KBo 56.179 has not previously been recognized.

KBo 55.235 was originally a three-column tablet, as indicated by the width of the only preserved column (col. iii or iv), which measures approx. 6 cm. The poor state of preservation of KBo 56.179 prevents any firm conclusions regarding its original format.

Although only a few diagnostic signs are preserved in KBo 55.235, the forms consistently point to an earlier rather than a later date. LI, AK, or EN reflect the older sign forms, and UG with subscript UD is likewise attested in manuscripts written in the Middle Script (Weeden M. 2011a: 44).

KBo 56.179 is too fragmentary for any secure palaeographic assessment, but the forms of URU, RU, or ḪA suggest it was written in the New Script.